Philosopher: The misunderstood being, but a happy one.

Colin McGinn, in his Philosophy By Another Name, does not like to be called a philosopher anymore. He wants to change his title to 'onticist.

It is a valid concern that I, too, had dealt with a long time ago when I taught philosophy. My concern with this issue was more of what do philosophers really do.

I like science. It would not be wise to ignore science and its discoveries of the world in which we live. But, I would be cautious to not use a particular science as a model for philosophizing. Philosophy had once committed the mistake of trying to model after the physical science. And, that to me, was the beginning of Western philosophers' identity crisis in the last 500 years.

I like literature because the novelists write about the universal conditions of human existence. Philosophers would be wisely advised to take up literature.

Where does philosophy come into the picture?

This is not the right place to write an exhaustive treatise on what philosophy is and what it has to do with science and literature. Nonetheless, I will to spell out a general outline as to what I think philosophy is.

Colin McGiinn is right in saying that philosophy is the only discipline that deals with the general nature of being. Recall the great metaphysicians like Plato, Aristotle, Heidegger and, may I add, Derrida and Levinas (I know that some of you who are acquainted with the last two may disagree with me), and in the East, Lao Tzu.

They all deal with the nature of being: that is, they explore the original relationship between consious being and Being.

Let us put it this way: scientists have devised a way to approach and study the world. It is called the scientific method. Novelists feel more and are very self consious of their feelings and the experiences of the others. This is why they write about love, suffering, the meaning of life.

Scientists adapt a certain mode of thinking that formulated the scientific method. What scientists do not consider to be part of their study is their very mode of thinking that hides and is determined by their fundamental assumptions about being.

Novelists, too, have a fundamental attitude towards Being (themselves and their fellow human beings and nature). However, they do not study the nature of that fundamental attitude that determines their approach and their relationships with themselves and their fellow human being.

The study of these fundamental approaches and attitudes, to me, is that concern that properly belongs to philosophy (or, in the words of Colin MGinn, 'ontics'). And, to best understand 'the general nature of being' the philospher (i.,e onticist), must, in the words of Plato, be interested in everything, from science and literature. Philosophers must stay in touch with these discplines. Otherwise they would be studying empty shells of Being.

Question: why do you philosophize?